It is refreshing that amidst all of the misinformation, righteous indignation, etc. at least one person provides comments that tend to reflect an understanding of the relevant issues.

If copyright law was the “Hydra” so many mistakenly seem to believe it is, then why is it that examples are continuously noted here where groups are making movies and songs without a single label filing a lawsuit. Could it be perhaps that such movies and songs are the original works of these groups?

http://poemshape.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/let-poetry-die/

“The best thing that could happen to poetry is to drive it out of the universities with burning pitch forks. Starve the lavish grants. Strangle them all in a barrel of water. Cast them out. The current culture, in which poetry is written for and supported by poets has created a kind of state-sanctioned poetry that resists innovation. When and if poetry is ever made to answer to the broader public, then we may begin to see some great poetry again – the greatness that is the collaboration between audience and artist.”

History has proven that ignorance is a control since the beginning, religion & slavery being the most obvious to use it.

Knowledge is considered dangerous by those who wish to hold power over others. Pretty hard to con a smart person.

1. Hell yeah I drew parallels to slavery. Well actually, not specifically *me* originally, but it’s an extremely apt parallel.
Y’know why? There were quite a few moneyed elites who had a *hell* of a lot to lose from slavery being repealed:

A. Everybody involved in the “Middle Passage” (capturing and transporting slaves).
B. Every slave “owner” who was destined to lose a hell of a lot of “property” for which he’d paid. Think about that.

Oh wait, my bad — the institution of chattel slavery wasn’t “inherently bad”, slavery was just “a tool”.

Yet again, NONE of you have actually managed to either refute the points raised about the negative consequences of current IP ‘law’, or actually come up with a way in which copyright/patent actually makes things better.

But the dumbest thing I’ve read on this entire thread, is the notion that “without copyright, corporations would be able to seize and commercialize without credit”. So? Doesn’t stop *you* from selling it. Evidence? Which corporation, exactly?

Of course copyright law is “merely a tool”. So are laws that attempt to criminalize homosexuality and “blasphemy”. So are laws that prohibit women from “legally” learning to read. So is corporate lobbying (which, oddly enough, your pals at the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/BREIN etc. have been doing quite a lot of, recently.)

Of course, the good news is that thanks to a recent supreme court decision here in the U.S., corporations now lack even the relatively modest restraints on their direct financing of political activity. We’ve officially become the “Corporate States of America”, folks, so buck up, IP trolls: rest assured that your multinational corporate pals will excercise that “legal personhood” thing, and buy themselves more toadies to enforce whatever the fuck they want.

But hey, where’s the harm in that, hmm? After all, “corporate personhood is only a tool.”

Fuckin’ amazing.

wow how can these guys that used to now get paid now be getting paid as 75% of the kernal contributors are not sponsored by YOU guessed it wealthy corporations that get free code.

LETS imagine a system like this for tv and movies
you have the network wanting to make a few bucks right?
OK it has ads that go every 15 or so minutes.
thats money
you have theatres that have ads before the show.
you have dvdr sales ( for collectors and those wishing to watch again)
and you give free downloads to advertise and spread the word keeping the commercials in it. YES you can skip….
and how do the actors get paid cause the network that gets all the possiblities of revenue above and pays them

YEA know like the over paid hockey players of wayne gretzkeys day and that strike/lockout where they had caps oput on what they can make perhaps we should be revisting what the max money a movie is allowed to make and then after that all the cash goes to homeless or charites as well.
actors and muscians are paid crazy monies
and you can get a full pay scale just by saying 3 full lines in any tv or movie.
WATCH for that.
this is why so many people standing there you never hear them say shit.
youtube proves as did that “startrek in the prekining”
fan movie with babylon V and star trek showed it might take a pro move 5 years but the end result is that it advances the tech for others wishing to do so.

blair witch project howd that do on a 30K budget?
yea ….
the top percent are extremely nervous that they are going to lose there positions people keep this push up.

THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THEY DO NOT WANT ACTA NOR LONG TERM COPYRIGHTS

Good job admitting that you have to make ridiculously stupid assumptions to support your point.

Are you an idiot?

I was unaware that “artist” automatically meant “musician”.

Art flourished? Compared to the last 100 years? That’s pretty laughable.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Spare me. Morality is entirely subjective.

That’s great. You can go ahead and survive in the forest. Meanwhile, we’re talking about the real world. And your understanding of this particular situation is obviously minimal.

Clearly I must spell out my argument. When I say that royalties exist becasue otherwise a novel would cost more than 10 dollars, it’s the exact same thing as when you argue to share the cost by a large number of people.

Concerts are affordable for the exact reason I already specified. the cost is divided by multiple consumers. The way this is applied to other forms of art is through royalties.

And if you think you can hire a novelist to write you a book in a couple of days, you’re delusional. But yes, every person can afford to buy a few days of an artists time. And that’s why we have royalties. Because you can’t afford to buy large chunks of an artists time.

It’s like you’re arguing in favor of a return to the traveling minstrel. That’s a pretty fantasy. It doesn’t work in the real world though.

Yes, hundreds of millions of people infringe on copyright. And most of that is harmless and much of it is ignored. Copyright infringement is difficult to prove and difficult to prosecute when we’re talking about individual usage.

But that kind of infringement is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to copyright law. Again, copyright protects individual artists from corporate exploitation. That’s a very good thing, whether you want to admit it or not.

You are a true idiot. Enjoy.

Holy crap, how do you people tolerate this kind of filthy person? What an appalling statement.

You know what else doesn’t work in the real world.

Intellectual property.

I know you are but what am I?

Thanks to you, I now hate IP more than ever. Good job!

Anti mike you are missing the point again and trying to mis direct …

“for limited times” means just that. It was put in our founding documents for the advancement of the arts and sciences. Not for corporations to make money. It was put their by people who understood right, wrong, and oppression. Copyright is to protect the creator of a work of science, art, or literature. The key word being creator and not corporation. It is not meant to span lifetimes or to lock up art forever.

“Yup. Copyright law prohibits corporations from exploiting artists work without permission”

I like the whole “without permission” part … LOL

What you are is an idiot.

That’s because most people under the age of 30 are asshats.

Morality is subjective. That’s simply the way it is.

I know lots of people that argue otherwise. Most of them want to outlaw abortion and stand in the way of gay marriage. Because they think those things are “immoral”.

Breaking the law!

As an appropriation artist, I completely disagree with this statement.

As an artist of original work, I disagree with your disagreement.

Regardless, do you appropriate 100% of another artists work and claim it as your own without adding anything of substantial value?

Yes. Is that wrong?

But for every door closed, God opens a window.

Hmm since when did file sharing become part of this topic.

You know, you can just say you’re drunk and/or didn’t have coffee. I would gladly accept that as an excuse.

Nope, there’s a more accurate one… But if Mike won’t be honest, then it’s almost impossible to stand behind him or anything he believes.

When he says “It has nothing to do with respecting, honoring or valuing the works of anyone.” it really changes the tone. Mike should run for political office.

Don’t get me started on Monsanto.

They have been snapping up claim on breeding that local farmers don’t have the resources to patent themselves – even suing and taking farmers crops that were cross-pollinated (due to Mother Nature) with their patented genetics.

There is a huge case for abuse of the system as it was intended to operate.

It being intellectual property as defined by the constitution. To promote the progress of the useful arts. To promote the progress of the sciences.

Nowhere does it say anything about honor or respect or value.

Yes, even books that were published back in 1925 with an author that died in 1940. It’s illegal to download a dead author’s work that is over 85 years old.

That’s wrong. You shouldn’t do that. It’s wrong and immoral and illegal.

it doesn’t matter. morality and legality just don’t come into play with this stuff.

IP protectionism is out of control, but it doesn’t matter. unauthorized distribution is illegal, but it doesn’t matter.

the fact of the matter is that unless the IP cartels are allowed to go house to house and shoot people, it is physically and technologically impossible to stop it. that is the only thing that matters in all of this.

You seem to be just to stupid for reason.

And what does that have to do with modern day? the world is different, technology is different, the corporate machine is different, the cost of living is different, the foundation of the economy is different…

I never claimed art would disappear without copyright. What I said was that, without some form of copyright, corporations could abuse artists without limit.

Indeed. But such a large number of posts without Masnick involvement makes me wonder. He may try to chalk it up to flying, but I imagine there was WiFi on that plane.

Either way, someone maybe even Don King himself probably sponsored this fight.

Worse than El Diablo! I don’t think so!

Your reading comprehension needs a lot of work.

The romanticised notion of inventor that you seem to champion, perhaps. The ones that have a day job however, not so much.

The RIAA may only give pennies on the dollar. But they still usually give pennies. They usually give credit. Someone who appropriates another individuals art without compensation while claiming it as their own? Without offering anything? Worse than the RIAA. Clearly.

Precisely my point.

Not to mention, I absolutely hate lobbying groups, and RIAA is just that sort of group. Now, I’m not suggesting any action here, but if someone were to bring all of the entertainment group lobbyists to their knees, and removed any power they think they have, I would not feel bad one bit. Again, not condoning any illegal activities at all.

Honestly, if I could get a job at RIAA, I would so I could take that place down from the inside. I would collect all of the memos I could that no-one wants published. Everything would be sent to all of the media outlets in a nice little press kit. Any outlets that do not air the info are shills and are in need of reform. Maybe some political re-education.

The story is very good.Lines are revealed from the feelings, deeply touched by the author’s feelings! cheap nfl jerseys
Here, no you don’t like, only you don’t need hope you can spend a few minutes to browsing our website, We are selling jerseys, we believe you won’t regret it!